It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Several States Ease Restrictions on Gun Laws

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Several States Ease Restrictions on Gun Laws


www.foxnews.com

In many states across the United States, it's getting easier to carry a gun -- and many say it's the result of a campaign by the National Rifle Association

A nationwide review by The Associated Press found that over the last two years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws loosening gun restrictions

The most contentious of Tennessee's new gun laws was one allowing handguns in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Maybe some people on here can tell me whats going on there in the USA. I hear Alex Jones etc crying about how gun laws are stricter and guns are to be outlawed altogether, but this story seems to contradict all of this.

Im sure there are many people who are in the know here on ATS that can shed some light on this subject to a Non-USA Resident who sees 2 completely different stories being told!

cheers, G.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Well Alex Jones is a fear monger, what every craziness he can spout to boost his ratings he will rant and rave about.

Also though if it was up the federal government we wouldn't have any guns, luckily the states still have some say in what goes on in their states as far as laws go.

So you really aren't hearing conflicting reports, it's just he difference between what the federal government wants to do and what the states actually do.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
The American people don't want resrictive gun laws, only the elites desire this.

It is easier for the people to effect change at the local level than it is to work on the national level. Many of the big moneyed elites spend most of their time influencing national elections to federal positions and have a more difficult time swaying local elections where the people are closer to their reps.

As a result, the people can better hold their local (state) officials accountable and get desirable legislation passed within their states.

On the national level however, the big money elites and their highly paid lobbiests hold sway. Many national reps rarely return to their home districts anytime outside of campeign season. They don't understand their constituents and don't care.

It is on the national level that we fear our gun rights may be taken away from us. Liberal Democrats could pass legislation to restrict gun ownership, make ammo harder to get ahold of or tax firearms so that only the super rich could afford them. If liberal democrats get enough seats on the Supreem Court, they could reinterpret the 2nd amendment in order to take away our right to bear arms.

Hope that helps.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by grantbeed
 


States are loosening up their gun laws, but federal laws, laws that the President signs into action, can over-ride state laws. And there is an effort at the Federal level to restrict guns, if not out right make them illegal to own. Eventually, a treaty will be signed, or federal law made that will make them illegal, and then all heck is going to break loose.

The states, in all honesty, seem to be preparing for a civil war, and it seems, the legal part of that civil war was begun a few years ago as states began passing laws that contradict the patriot act that the federal system signed into law after 911.

Wish us luck, please.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by grantbeed
 


I believe TPTB have done a backflip over trying to take guns away, they have come to realise it's not going to happen. They now understand it would be far easier for them to achieve their goals by force than lies and tricks.

The goal, I believe, is to get the people to throw the first punch. Then when TPTB respond with force, they will look like the good guys.

Why do you think TPTB allow billboards like this?

And surely, you need "approval" to run around the streets with automatic weapons (real or not) to make a film like this...



It is obvious to me that TPTB are now encouraging US citizens to take up arms against their government. Bear in mind, they already have their "homegrown terrorism" laws in place to deal with it.

They desperately want it to happen, so they can bring in martial law. What's the bet, under martial law, that they can take away your guns - no reason required.



[edit on 12/12/09 by NuclearPaul]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Ah, I see. Thanks for making it clearer to me how it works there.

To be honest they are kind of pushing for a similar thing here in New Zealand too. Lots of gun owners here are fearing tighter regulations etc.

Its like a smaller scale to the USA. Been a few gun related crimes that the MSM have splattered all over there front pages to help the Governments cause.




posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Nyhee
 


I just want to say that a treaty does not override any of our constitutional rights. The Constitution is above all treaties that are signed, no matter what anybody tells you.

Also there is a case about to go through the Supreme Court that will settle the issue of the 2nd amendment for good. The case that is going to be heard will determine if the people have the right to bare arms to overthrow the government, and the outcome which will end up being 5-4 in favor of the 2nd amendment.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


good point Paul. I've never read this line of thinking, but in a messed up kind of way, it makes sense. It wouldnt surprise me anyway with those dogs at the top.

Scary thought if it does actually come to this.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


Well that is what they want to happen, but it isn't going work that way. Despite the media's best attempts at painting gun owners as a bunch of backwoods rednecks they won't fire the first shot it will be the government that does. That is why the government is getting anxious and nervous because at the pace they are moving they aren't going to have an excuse for the violence that will be caused.

I told my mother about a year ago to watch the news and watch how they are going to start bringing up "home grown terrorist" and sure enough look what is going on in the news. I knew that was going to happen, but I forget what the event was that caused me to make that statement.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
The American people don't want resrictive gun laws, only the elites desire this.

It is easier for the people to effect change at the local level than it is to work on the national level. Many of the big moneyed elites spend most of their time influencing national elections to federal positions and have a more difficult time swaying local elections where the people are closer to their reps.

As a result, the people can better hold their local (state) officials accountable and get desirable legislation passed within their states.

On the national level however, the big money elites and their highly paid lobbiests hold sway. Many national reps rarely return to their home districts anytime outside of campeign season. They don't understand their constituents and don't care.

It is on the national level that we fear our gun rights may be taken away from us. Liberal Democrats could pass legislation to restrict gun ownership, make ammo harder to get ahold of or tax firearms so that only the super rich could afford them. If liberal democrats get enough seats on the Supreem Court, they could reinterpret the 2nd amendment in order to take away our right to bear arms.

Hope that helps.


I agree with you to an extent. Everything but the last paragraph. The US Gov/Congress has no right/privilige directly expressed to them in the Constitution to have the power to have ANY control over gun laws whatsoever (just like healthcare and bailouts). So we go to the 10th ammendment, which states it's pretty much up to the states OR the PEOPLE at this point. BUT! Since we do have the 2nd ammendment, I believe that overrides the states having any say in it, even with the 10th ammendment. I believe the Constititution, 2nd & 10th ammendments are written this to have some checks&balances over gun laws, leaving it entirely up to the people to determine if they want a gun or not. The 2nd ammendment completely overrides the 10th in the sense that it's up to individual states, for the sake of states becoming tainted with the corruption we see in the federal government.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nyhee
reply to post by grantbeed
 


States are loosening up their gun laws, but federal laws, laws that the President signs into action, can over-ride state laws. And there is an effort at the Federal level to restrict guns, if not out right make them illegal to own. Eventually, a treaty will be signed, or federal law made that will make them illegal, and then all heck is going to break loose.

The states, in all honesty, seem to be preparing for a civil war, and it seems, the legal part of that civil war was begun a few years ago as states began passing laws that contradict the patriot act that the federal system signed into law after 911.

Wish us luck, please.


Read my previous post. The President/Congress/Fed has no right/privilige to do this. If they do, all in power that voted to do so is now free game and has a red dot on their forehead.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by grantbeed
 


Hey, Grant. It's Obama himself, who doesn't quite understand the 2nd amendment to the U.S.Constitution, even though he is a constitutional lawyer
, and some of the folks he surrounds himself with. What you are seeing is states, trying to take back their rights that they believed have been impeded by many federalcritters in recent years. Yes, without the actions of state governments, no doubt the federal government would run roughshod over us all. Yeah, I don't agree with a lot of Alex Jones' tactics and rhetoric, but concerning the 2nd amendment, he has got it right.
The constitution proclaims citizens have the right to bear arms. Since this right is stated in the constitution, that means state and local goverments do not have the right to infringe upon this.

Obama believes the constitution doesn't apply to local governments. Um.........duh. Yes it does. When it is explicately expressed in the very same constitution he is supposedly a master of.

If Obama and his minions could convince "we the people" that the states have no rights, then that would give full power to the federal government. Scary stuff as far as I am concerned.

So states are kicking it up a notch or two. That's good.

Without the protection of the 2nd amendment, both locally and federally, the 1st amendment would not exist, both locally and federally.

I tried, man. I hope I succeeded in explaining this stuff, at least in some small way.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by kyred
 


cheers for that explanation.


wow, sounds to me like if Obama tries to sweep the 2nd amendment under the carpet, there is going to be a war!





posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Some Americans dislike guns.

*raises hand*

They are violent weapons. America has an extremely high rate of gun crimes. There is a problem. Defense, my butt. If everyone only used guns for defense, it would be fine and dandy. Unfortunately, people need guns to defend themselves from crazies with guns.

Also, unfortunately making guns illegal wouldn't help because the black market for these weapons is ridiculously large. Otherwise I would be all for that.

Instead I just try not to cause trouble or insult anyone because they could just toss a bullet at me like it's no big deal.

The reasons the founding fathers had for including the 2nd amendment may or may not still apply today. I mean, if you're paranoid about the government (which you are), they still apply. Once you realize how many people are injured by or die from guns a year, it should make you think.

But it probably doesn't.

[edit on 12/13/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Very good point Raven. Big respect for putting your hand up too, seeing as there seems to be lots of pro gun people on here. Its like a catch22 situation now with there being so many guns and gun owners I guess.

Take the responsible gun owners guns away and you're still left with lots of NutCase gun owners who own them illegally and are willing to commit violent crime with them.

I totally see this point of view as well. How can this ever be resolved?




[edit on 13-12-2009 by grantbeed]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by grantbeed
 


From source:


Supporters of expanding handgun rights argue that people with state-issued permits are far less likely to commit crimes, and that more lawfully armed people cause a reduction in crime.


The more than obvious reason that states are responding to their citizens demands for gun regulation is: We have the most ultra Left POTUS in the US history!

Because of Obama there have been more handguns sold, more ammunition purchased more long guns sold, more people packing, more women arming, and more men creating a home defense system than any time before!

Obama is frightening! He and Congress are taking away the rights of citizens at an amazing rate! Why would anyone wonder why citizens are arming and why States are responding?
Just wondering!

[edit on 13/12/09 by plumranch]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Also though if it was up the federal government we wouldn't have any guns, luckily the states still have some say in what goes on in their states as far as laws go.

You got that right. In fact, with the specific wording in the Constitution & Bill of Rights, the States actually have more Political Powers than the Federal Government does! It boils down to the 10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In short, all Political Power ultimately originates from We the People & comes full circle through the 10th Amendment.

Actually, the States reaffirming their Powers is not really new...About half the States have been rejecting the Real ID (& it's "modified" permutations). Lots of other examples in recent years, but this is one of the bigger things. Even on more local levels, Gun Restrictions have been "relaxed" right down to Constitutional levels in the Codes of Ordinances for Kenesaw, GA. They've had these Ordindances in effect for several years & show marked decrease in violent crimes. As they say, "An armed society is a polite society."



Originally posted by FortAnthem
The American people don't want resrictive gun laws, only the elites desire this.

Well, as George Santayana said:

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Something that has repeated in history again & again is this: Any government that can successfully disarm its population start committing massacres. It's a matter of historical record, after all. The US Founding Forefathers were highly educated & well read in history...That's why they specified in the 2nd Amendment that the Right to own & bare arms shall not be infringed. Even the US Supreme Court has ruled that inalienable Rights under the Law was never subject to any kind of taxation, regulation or any other kind of restriction; The reason being plain & clear, that should the government be cabable of doing so, Rights could simply be "legislated" right out of existance. Also notice that the Amendment makes no difference or specifications of any kind when it comes to the type or number of "arms" that might be excluded...In short, they wanted to be sure that We the People could be at least as well-armed as any government standing military!

This particular exclusion has two purposes: Not only can the People defend themselves from a government turning tyrannical, but foreign invasions are also pretty much doomed to failure. During WW 2, a Japanese General (I forgot his name) was asked about a land invasion of the US. He remarked that it would fail, because "there would be a gun hiding behind every blade of grass." All in all, even a notable person like Charlton Heston agrees, as he spoke to the National Press Club, on September 11, 1997 (excerpted):

I believe every good journalist needs to know why the Second Amendment must be considered more essential than the First Amendment. This may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the right to keep and bear arms is not archaic. It's not an outdated, dusty idea some old dead white guys dreamed up in fear of the Redcoats.
---------------------------
I say that the Second Amendment is, in order of importance, the first amendment. It is America's First Freedom, the one right that protects all the others. Among freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly, of redress of grievances, it is the first among equals. It alone offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. The right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows "rights" to exist at all.

Of course, he's right. If not for the King's Nobles backing the Magna Carta with the threat of rising in Arms, it would not have come to pass. If not for the American Colonists willing to fight the King's Redcoats in a War for Independance, the Declaration of Independance would have been worth less than toilet paper.


Originally posted by Nyhee
States are loosening up their gun laws, but federal laws, laws that the President signs into action, can over-ride state laws. And there is an effort at the Federal level to restrict guns, if not out right make them illegal to own.

In truth of Law, the federal government can make all the restrictions it wants, but can only lawfully enforce them on federal territories! Oh, it's that pesky 'ol 10th Amendment again! It seems that only on lands that belong to the federal government can be so regulated...Inside of States' boundaries, the States (& the People, respectively) decide. Territories & Possessions that the feds can regulate include Guam, Puerto Rico & other such lands outside of State boundaries, but also includes those lands granted by the States for Lawful national use, such as military bases & the branch of the Supreme Court in each capitol city, including any office/administrative facilities open for Public use & in Washington D.C. itself.


Originally posted by sr_robert1
So we go to the 10th ammendment, which states it's pretty much up to the states OR the PEOPLE at this point. BUT! Since we do have the 2nd ammendment, I believe that overrides the states having any say in it, even with the 10th ammendment.

That's very true. Before any territory can even become ratified as a State, it must also have its own Constitution...And cannot be written, interpreted or enforced to act in direct confrontation with the US Constitution. How many US Citizens even realize that their State even has its own Constitution? Probably far too many. No, the States have no Lawful Powers over the the US Constitution or their own State Constitution either. In effect, these are their Contracts of Employment under We the People & the Oath of Office lawfully binds them to the contract.

In my own State Constitution (I'm not going to say which State, but it's a common specification in various Constitutions though), it confirms the fact that all Political Power is merely delegated down to the government entities...From the People. This External-Source is quoted from Article 1, Section 2 from my State's Constitutuion:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right, at all times, to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.

All down throughout the history of human civilization, all Political Power has originated from the People...It's a fact of history. If the government forgets or denies this fact & goes beyond Public Patience or Forebearance, then the compost connects with the rotary oscillator. It has never failed.


Originally posted by sr_robert1
I believe the Constititution, 2nd & 10th ammendments are written this to have some checks&balances over gun laws, leaving it entirely up to the people to determine if they want a gun or not.

And if you've read the Kenesaw, GA Ordinances (linked above) about firearms, that's exactly right...The decision whether or not to own one or even an entire armory of guns is the Right of each & every individual Citizen.The very few exceptions involve those people who have been proven to be either mentally or physically incompetent to own or use the guns irresponsibly. Each & every Right carries an inherent responsibility...As ruled by the Supreme Court, "Lawful exercise of a Right can never be converted into a crime." Lawful exercise means that, in exercising your Rights, you're responsible to not violate anyone else's equal Rights under the Law.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
If everyone only used guns for defense, it would be fine and dandy. Unfortunately, people need guns to defend themselves from crazies with guns.

This is exactly where the Supreme Court's ruling ("Lawful exercise of Rights can never be converted into a crime") makes the difference...Those crazies with guns are the ones who abuse their Rights & can have them removed, as well as having their day in court for committing crimes. Criminals aren't created by Laws...Criminals create themselves with their own actions. That's the core of the Common Law, which the Constitution upholds as the Supreme Law of the Land.


Originally posted by sr_robert1
The President/Congress/Fed has no right/privilige to do this. If they do, all in power that voted to do so is now free game and has a red dot on their forehead.

Well, there are peaceful methods to use first...By the Law. Impeachment (removal from Office) is the first. Also, according to the Law, any Officer that acts in Breech of Oath or violates any terms or conditions of the Constitution (ie: High Crimes or Misdemeanors) have automatically self-revoked his/her authority to exercise any of the Powers invested in the Office...In short, they're fired immediately, whether they're "officially" removed from Office or not. From that moment onward, if that person still occupies any Office, they have become a criminal, illegal impostor to a Government Officer. Yes, that's an automatic charge to be brought against them, above & beyond the original infraction!

All in all, it's the (alleged) Officers in the (alleged) government that should look to their own crimes & it's up to the People to hold them accountable under the Due Process of Law.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
They had a bill earlier in year if had pass you could of carried concealed in all the states, by it didn't pass maybe next time.
Right now you can get permit to carry concealed in 30 plus states, Vermont is problem because any legal person can carry concealed, but Vermont does not issue paper permit so your screwed if you travel out of state.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by grantbeed
 


If we have to live with guns then I think it would be far better if everyone had one. A state issued 45 or something. The trouble with just a few people owning guns is they tend to cause lots of problems for those who don't own guns.
If you were pretty sure that person you're thinking of robbing or raping is packing...it would make you stop and think twice.




top topics



 
4

log in

join